header-logo header-logo

Solicitors Regulation Authority focuses on in-house community

13 March 2024
Issue: 8063 / Categories: Legal News , Procedure & practice , Company
printer mail-detail
The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has published a raft of resources for in-house solicitors, including draft guidance for employers

The draft guidance aims to explain the professional obligations and standards of solicitors, including what they are unable to do. It clarifies, for example, that solicitors cannot be pressurised to change their legal advice to meet commercial goals or destroy correspondence that might be relevant to future litigation or any investigation.

It highlights that solicitors have duties of confidentiality and legal professional privilege, which means ‘there may be occasions where some individuals or departments will be unable to see what a solicitor has advised on in relation to a particular issue’.

The other draft guidance and case studies, published last week, cover running internal investigations, identifying your client when working in-house, and reporting concerns about wrongdoing when working in-house. It sets out the processes to go through, as well as what to do when, having reported the wrongdoing, the governing body lets it continue. In that case, the draft guidance suggests in-house solicitors avoid doing anything ‘that helps to facilitate the wrongdoing. For example, you should not draft a contract or agreement which you know your employer will have to breach the law to fulfil.’ Nor should the solicitor do ‘anything which suppresses exposure of the information’.

More than 34,500 solicitors—one in five solicitors—work in-house at more than 6,000 organisations.

Juliet Oliver, general counsel at the SRA, said: ‘As well as ongoing feedback from those working in the sector, recent high-profile cases such as the Post Office case have really shone a light on the unique challenges and issues which in-house solicitors can encounter.

‘We have been working closely with the in-house community over the past year to consider what support we can offer to address some of these challenges. We believe these resources will provide valuable support and guidance to in-house solicitors across a range of important issues. But to make sure this is the case, we want to take this opportunity to invite those working in the sector to input.’

View the draft guidance and provide feedback by 19 April on the SRA's website.

Issue: 8063 / Categories: Legal News , Procedure & practice , Company
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll